The Tea Party-fication of GOP continues apace

A couple of interesting reads out today drive home in strikingly vivid terms just how sharp the GOP's turn to the right during the Obama era has really been.

First, check out these fascinating factoids buried in Ron Brownstein's new piece for the National Journal about the significance and likely impact of the new crop of GOP Senate candidates:

Unless Democrats can recover lost ground, it appears likely that the 2010 elections will produce the biggest crop of freshman Republican senators since the 11 who arrived in 1994, and possibly even the 16 who were part of Ronald Reagan's landslide in 1980. Across a wide range of issues, the potential GOP Senate class of 2010 leans right even when compared with those earlier groups -- some contenders hold positions on the far frontier of modern American politics. Next year could bring to Washington the most consistently, and even militantly, conservative class of new senators in at least the past half-century....

Nineteen of the 20 Republican Senate nominees who have expressed an opinion on the widespread scientific consensus that greenhouse gases are altering the world's climate have declared the science either inconclusive or dead wrong, often in vitriolic terms.

That's astonishing. If Brownstein's tally is correct, the GOP Senate nominees who have taken a stand on global warming have been virtually unanimous in their conclusion that the science is bunk. Also: Brownstein notes that all but one of the GOP nominees want health reform repealed. And all of those nominees who have taken a position on immigration reform say we shouldn't consider any reform at all until border security is toughened up, a far cry from the GOP of George W. Bush.

Meanwhile, Gallup reports today that the number of Republicans calling themselves conservative is higher than ever: Fifty-three percent say they're conservative, and another 18 percent say they're very conservative, for a total of 71 percent.

But only 29 percent of Republicans say they're moderate or liberal. Gallup concludes that the conservative bloc is "growing in influence in the Republican Party," which "may help explain the success of several Tea Party-backed GOP candidates this year against establishment Republicans." As Chris Cillizza notes, any Republican who is considering a run for president needs to "get to the ideological right -- and fast."

The impact of the Tea Party on the GOP is only beginning to be felt. We have no idea where this story is going to take us.

Aside from the knuckle-dragging Neanderthal factor (with a tip o' the hat to Rep. Alan Grayson), the other troubling aspect of this continuation -- from the boosh administration -- of the complete and utter disregard and disrespect of science is this: How the heck do these deniers of science and fact ever expect to create a 21st century economy capable of competing with China, India, Japan, Europe, Brazil and the like when they believe that everything one needs to know can be found in the Bible? This Know Nothingism philosophy doesn't just bode ill for a civil society ... it is a dagger aimed most surely at the heart of the American economy.

"...the number of Republicans calling themselves conservative is higher than ever: Fifty-three percent say they're conservative, and another 18 percent say they're very conservative, for a total of 71 percent."

*********************

And you can thank Barack Obama for this!

Not only has Obama wakened the sleeping giant that is the conservative, white, middle class, but he punched a small hole in the New Deal Progressive Dike when he rammed through Obamacare.

When the conservatives repeal Obamacare, that will be the first time they have not just stopped but rolled back the Socialist juggernaut. Imagine all the other things conservatives will be able to roll back, thanks to the energy Obama has given them.

The Chinese government said Sunday that its "investigation" found that U.S. chicken products are being sold at low prices which undermine the local market. New import duties ranging from 50.3 percent to as much as 105.4 percent will take effect Monday and last for five years.

China was the largest importer of U.S. chicken in 2009 at $752.5 million but has been embroiled for months over duties imposed on U.S. chicken producers. The Chinese government said the new duties will replace ones imposed in February after preliminary results of the probe showed U.S. chicken was being sold at low prices ...

The news could hurt U.S. chicken makers, whose exports have buffered weak demand at home. The industry has been recovering from a downturn brought on by weak demand and high ingredient prices. Trade with Russia -- the second largest chicken importer in 2009 -- just reopened after being closed off since the winter over concerns about product safety.

The tariffs apply to chicken parts and whole birds, but not to live chickens or cooked products such as chicken sausage. Included are chicken feet, which most Americans throw away but are a delicacy in southern China.

I think this means that the Rethugs will make short-term gains but long-term losses. This is particularly true on the immigration issue. Yet also true concerning the science of global warming (which, of course, is accepted by almost all climate scientists).

Author Sargent, you ask where all of this is going going to take us? The answer: to a Republican victory and a Democrat thumping, of course! Oh, and by the way, all this climate change garbage is exactly that. It's garbage. It's like the Y2K bug or Avian Flu. Liberals screaming chicken little. We'll learn in five years that the earth is cooling, and that this cooling can best be explained by global warming. What?? It's not science. It's nonsense.

To add to what I said earlier: I do think that we are in for a period of very unstable politics. The US economy will get better but will not return to the high growth of the Clinton years. Neoliberal economics was built on the dominance of financial capital not productive capital. And profits were made largely through the redistribution of wealth from the bottom half to the top 5%. For most Americans, the years since Reagan have meant stagnant incomes. The economy was only able to keep going because of the bubbles that the Fed kept helping to inflate. But there are no new spaces for bubbles to be blown anymore--and this is especially true as Green Keynesianism was never given a chance: it is dead now.

So we are in a moment, one that might last for at least a decade if not more, of stagnant economy and unstable politics. We should expect a lot of wackos.

"I think this means that the Rethugs will make short-term gains but long-term losses."

Precisely, the current political cycle is the last gasp of white male superiority in this country, and most of them know it instinctually, but would sooner reach for their rifles than admit it. People much more knowledgable than I have already
demonstrated that the country's changing age and ethnic demographic will not make it a friendly place for the hard Right.
We will still have the wackos representing some district in the mountains of Idaho and the swampland of southern Georgia, but they will be marginalized.

Reagan popularity Nov 1982 42 per cent; unemployment 10. 8 per cent. Bush approval Jan 1009 25 per cent other polling had him below 20 per cent, get a grip and put it in historic per cent and stop this nonsense calling him bozo brigade.

I'll slip in here with praise for the economics debate which took over the last day of the weekend thread. That was very interesting stuff, from both right and left; just the sort of exchanges that keep me coming back here, even when I personally don't have anything to contribute. I don't even mind the snark and name-calling. It adds to the ambience. LOL.

Honestly, I'd say the beltway are terrified of Colbert and Stewart, both sides because they highlight just how hypocritical they can be. Sure, it's overwhelmingly highlighting elected Republicans hypocrisy but still. The press fears them because they don't go along with the beltway meme du jour and cut through the garbage and make everyone look like idiots.

Sometimes it takes comedy to get through the noise and get a point across and this is why those two are so important for our country imho and why having them elevated to a more prominent role to slice and dice through daily events will help us better at understanding ourselves as a people.

This must be national liberal bigotry day. The comment threads are rife with classic examples the snotty condescencion and out right bigotry provided by liberals.

Here's a prime example:
==================
Aside from the knuckle-dragging Neanderthal factor (with a tip o' the hat to Rep. Alan Grayson), the other troubling aspect of this continuation -- from the boosh administration -- of the complete and utter disregard and disrespect of science is this: How the heck do these deniers of science and fact ever expect to create a 21st century economy capable of competing with China, India, Japan, Europe, Brazil and the like when they believe that everything one needs to know can be found in the Bible? This Know Nothingism philosophy doesn't just bode ill for a civil society ... it is a dagger aimed most surely at the heart of the American economy.

========

Last week a liberal called all the people in Iowa "cro magnons". so can the liberals here make up their minds? Isn't there some guidance on what insults to use when addressing people who have the unmitigated temerity to disagree with lefty dogma? Apparently not.

One nice thing about the above quote: this is very efficient. It gets in several insults in just a few short words. That's the kind of productivity that would make the USSR an invulnerable economic super power!

there's a really easy what to create an economy with a great future: abandon the liberal love of centralized planning. Go back to those mundane, oh so yesterday ideas like freedom, market forces, risk, reward and ROI.

If others wish to follow spain off a green cliff, there is no reason for America to join that lemming herd.

Oh btw, when it comes to climate 'Science' which of the much vaunted models can accurately predict the time, intensity and period of the next el nino?

"I think this means that the Rethugs will make short-term gains but long-term losses."

Yep. What it means is that they are shrinking their party by taking it too far right and by demonizing all those who are not like them: Muslims, gays, Mexicans...

They may do well in the short term by energizing the people who think cable set top boxes are actually "mind control devices," but most people think that is silly. It will come back to hurt them in time.

I still maintain that the "Tea Party" is naught but the Republican Party hiding behind a false front. They (the GOBP) needed to rally the base, but the base was so turned off by the GOBP that they had to have their Masters, erm, their money guys (Koch brothers, etc) fund up a new entity. Then they had their media wing (FOX News, Hate Radio) blast non-stop appeals to get the word out that it was okay to blame everything Bush (who the vast majority of the Tea Partiers voted for twice) did on Obama. Given that they had been blaming, up until that point, every bad thing Bush did on Clinton, this was a relatively quick and easy change for the GOBP (aka the Tea Party) to do. Given that Bush’s actions can be blamed largely on those that elected him, the “Tea Partiers” were all to willing to blame Obama. After all, the other choice was to take responsibility themselves, and Republicans just don’t do that.

Sorry. I always get weak when I see all this liberal name-calling, trailer-trash, et al., directed at conservatives.

I think all the attention focused on the tea-party is misguided. They represent a decentralized reaction to what is going on in Washington. It's not a winning strategy for Democrats to run on "Things could be even WORSE than this!" Democrats have controlled Congress for four years and the White House for two. The unemployment rate has gotten WORSE. People don't see any reason for optimism on the current course. They're holding the party in power responsible, just as they did in 2006 and 2008. Republicans are pledging fiscal responsibility, whether or not they can be counted on to follow through. Democrats blew their last chance when they refused to vote on extending the middle-class tax-cuts; this plays right into the "tax-and-spend" cliche---that they don't REALLY intend to EVER extend the cuts.

"...the current political cycle is the last gasp of white male superiority in this country..."

***********************

Can I have a hit off that doobie you're smoking? Must be some really strong sh*t!

When you sober up, grab a calculator and the Census stats, and start crunching the numbers. White people will be the predominate voting block for at least two more generations. And the more anti-white racists like Obama that get elected, the more cohesive that white voting block will be.

"I think this means that the Rethugs will make short-term gains but long-term losses."

Precisely, the current political cycle is the last gasp of white male superiority in this country, and most of them know it instinctually, but would sooner reach for their rifles than admit it. People much more knowledgable than I have already
demonstrated that the country's changing age and ethnic demographic will not make it a friendly place for the hard Right.
We will still have the wackos representing some district in the mountains of Idaho and the swampland of southern Georgia, but they will be marginalized.

Posted by: filmnoia | September 27, 2010 1:11 PM
----

Seldom will you see so much ignorance displayed in so few words.

The current political cycle (the one which features an African-American president) is the last gasp of white male superiority.

"People more knowledgeable than I . . ." LOL. That would include most everyone.

"Hard Right". "Wackos." Like Michael Steele, Bobby Jindal, Nikky Haley, Tim Scott, et al. I guess you missed the threads about how the "changing age and ethnic demographic" will not necessarily mean an increase in people who think the government should take care of them from the cradle to the grave. If you have a brain, however feeble, stop playing with it and put it back in your skull.

Republicans thrive only in the mountains of Idaho and the swamplands of southern Georgia---whose next Governor may be the white male Nikki Haley.

All of the white males who post here, like leichtman1, may be disappointed to know that the current political cycle is their last gasp.

the justices will think for...hmm... 3 minutes, (if that) and rule in favor of the federales.

The End!

2) Chipping Away: Is there anyone who has lost so much brain mass that the idea of Obama letting the Reichpubliscums screwing his legacy legislation appears even probable?

Not a chance in Hell!

Obama will veto and use Signing Statements until the GOP has to surrender with not ONE victory. The alternative would be to let the Reich wingtards convert Obama into the first President in the history of this Republic who would let the opposition demolish an already voted part of his agenda.

Anyone who think Obama is that stupid's got big problems with logical thinking.

@skipsailing28:
"And I note that you can't answer my question: which model can now accurately forecast the next el nino? which one got the last one right?"

No one can answer this question because this is not the purview of climate science. Climate science does NOT deal with prediction of single events, but with prediction of trends developing over long periods of time.

So, your pseudo-challenge is just yet another red herring that pretend to amuse the masses. Unfortunately for you, anyone who bothers to check basic definitions will see through your bullshit.

brigade you won t see me using those childish name calling stunts. Heck I even went so far as to defend jake in the last thread when those on the left attacked his educational credentials, my comment is that we all post here on an honor system and should take all posts at face value as having integrity and just concentrate on issues. When Obama says he is a Christian I don t question his soul and demand he prove it.

My theory is that Obama's polling numbers are precisely those of POTUS Reagan in Nov 1982 with a 10.8 % unemployment rate, and he went on to win 40 or so states against Mondell in 1984 if I am correct.

"In a paper published in Nature Geoscience, researchers in Japan and France said their new forecast model could predict an El Nino 14 months ahead of time, several months earlier than with current methods."
~

I graduated from Anacoco High School in 1957 and out of those grand old History books I can still hear the voice of my Hero, Mr. Patrick Henry, GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH, HE DECRIED! I have searched my heart and I know this is one of the foundations of the Tea Party Movement. AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL, I AM TIRED OF SEEING YOU SLIP AWAY. I AM TIRED OF SEEING LAWS MADE TO BENEFIT THE CRIMINAL, THE FOREIGNER, THE TERORIST, AND MOST OF ALL, THE DEVIL, A

Outright REPEAL (via the Legislative, not Judicial branch) will probably have to wait until Obama's gone. However, the GOP-controlled Congress can also seek to de-fund HCR (there's nothing to "veto" then ; )

Tea Party is just a name change for the same Right Wing Base that Karl Rove developed. They are just trying to conceal the fact that they were George W. Bush's base.

Only those that believe that Dick Armey was never a long term elected Republican in Washington, and that the Oil Industry Koch Brother Billionaires, are actually impoverished populists, could believe that the Tea Party is not just the same old Republican Right Wingers, dressed Lipton Flo-Thru Garb.

@michiganmaine: "I think this means that the Rethugs will make short-term gains but long-term losses. "

The first part (well, except for Rethugs--like Dumbocrats, it's a childish, unhelpful moniker, but I suppose whatever tweaks your melon) is right but the second part is fantasy. We're entering a highly partisan, long-term trend towards short-term gains for both parties. Democrats will when big again shortly--if not in 2012 or 2014, then 2016 or 2018.

Remember, folks were predicting 40 years in the wilderness for the Republicans. Conservatism, the Republicans, and the GOP were all finished, possibly forever, after the 2008 elections. The implicit assumption: the Republicans gains from 1994 and the 2000s had been "short-term" gains and now their long-term losses had begun.

Turns out, the Democrats gains were short-term, as well. And my prediction is that the Republicans gains will be short-term. As will the gains of the next set of Democrats in the majority, after the Republicans.

The days for 40 year single-party control of the house are over. I think the days of 8 or 12 years of the same party controlling the senate are over.

I graduated from Anacoco High School in 1957 and out of those grand old History books I can still hear the voice of my Hero, Mr. Patrick Henry, GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH, HE DECRIED! I have searched my heart and I know this is one of the foundations of the Tea Party Movement. AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL, I AM TIRED OF SEEING YOU SLIP AWAY. I AM TIRED OF SEEING LAWS MADE TO BENEFIT THE CRIMINAL, THE FOREIGNER, THE TERORIST, AND MOST OF ALL, THE DEVIL.

leichtman1: "My theory is that Obama's polling numbers are precisely those of POTUS Reagan in Nov 1982 with a 10.8 % unemployment rate, and he went on to win 40 or so states against Mondell in 1984 if I am correct."

It would be nice if this were true, and I do hope that Obama wins. However, there are some real differences in the economics of the situation. The Reagan recession was created by the Fed, which pushed up interest rates to get inflation under control. It was brought to an end once the Fed lowered those rates and Reagan began his (Military) Keynesian policies. The difference now is that this recession was not created by the Fed pushing interest rates up, but by the Fed blowing bubble after bubble to keep the economy moving. The Fed can't lower rates to get things moving, as rates are already effectively zero. Now we could try some real Green Keynesian policies. But, let's face it, the politics just aren't there. We are in for a much longer down turn this time.

The story siad this:
"Tracking Indian Ocean climate patterns could improve early-warning systems for the El Nino phenomenon, helping save lives and billions of dollars lost each year to the severe weather it causes."

It also said the model "could", not that it "did" or "does". But we'll see when the next one comes around.

and grosmec is wrong, yet again. If a model cannot predict something as important as the el nino cycle over a period of a few years why would anyone who isn't a inveterate kool aid drinker believe thier prediction?

Sure you tried to sleaze around the simple facts but no sale. Predicting the climate is predicting the climate. Can't get el nino right, can't be trusted.

Not even a nice try.

now this:
==================
The people who deny the science on climate change: can we get them to show their committment for that view by not allowing them to visit a doctor ever again??
=========================

What does one have to do with another? Much of medicine is based on proven results. What have the climate alarmists proved? Only that they can fudge data and raise money from hoardes of dupes.

the entire thing is a scam, a hoax. It will make a handful of people rich and powerful while the rest of us scrub our clothes on a washboard while squinting in the candle light.

No thanks.

Once again, Michael Crichton did a great job on the enviro guys. He used actual data and asked tough questions. One good, reasonable response, the rest is just ill imformed bluster from ignorant true believers.

"Is there anyone who has lost so much brain mass that the idea of Obama letting the Reichpubliscums screwing his legacy legislation appears even probable?"

*************************

And who would be stupid enough to think a Republican could ever win Teddy Kennedy's seat?

Posted by: pmendez"

And those two facts have exactly what to do with each other? You might as well have said, "And who would be stupid enough to think that a black man could ever be elected president in a crushing defeat of a war-hero white male?

Meteorologist Jeff Masters, producer of the Weather Underground Web site, said waters in the equatorial eastern Pacific have been steadily warming all year, and this makes it more likely that an El Nino will form."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation

"El Niño is credited with suppressing hurricanes and made the 2009 hurricane season the least active in twelve years."
~

"Democrats have controlled Congress for four years and the White House for two. The unemployment rate has gotten WORSE. People don't see any reason for optimism on the current course. They're holding the party in power responsible, just as they did in 2006 and 2008. Republicans are pledging fiscal responsibility, whether or not they can be counted on to follow through"

brigade

brigade would you agree that when Obama was sworn in that the country was hemoraging job losses at the rate of 500,000-710,000 jobs per month? Since Jan 2010 there is positive job growth of 50,000-75,000 per month, certainly not nearly enough when you include population growth but a POSITIVE TREND nontheless.

The Rs are Pledging financial responsibility?
As Rs are famous for saying, how did that work out for you b/w2001 and 2008?

Where are the specifics about what they will cut to pay for an additional $700 billion in tax cuts and curious why no mention was made in their so called pledge of Stopping Ear Marks?. Instead they made some vague promise to cut the budget to 2008 levels MIGHT save over 10 year $30 years, whoppie, so how about the other $670 billion added to the deficit. Everyone wants tax cuts just tell us how you intend to pay for them.

It reminds me of Nixon's Secret Plan to end the V.N. war, I believe he used that line in 1968 and again in 1972. His promise, Trust Me I have a plan to end the VN War, I won't tell you until after the election what that plan is. W/O specifics it is that same old Richard Nixon promise to "trust us".

in reply to this:
=================
Is that how Empires fail and crumble into the dustbin of History?

========================

I suggest Macchievelli's "discourse". Relying on the original writings of Titus Livy, Niccolo examines some critical historical events in Rome's history.

Among the reasons that empires fall: loss of poltical will to maintain an empire. the word macchiavelli uses is "effeminate". It was his view that an effeminate society could not withstand external pressures.

Would the Progressives here like to be able to influence the Democratic Party the way the Tea Party has to the Republicans? What if in 2012, a Democrat primaried, say, Kerry from the left. Think that might motivate other Dems to move left? To help, I'll start calling you crazy racists.

Where are the specifics about what they will cut to pay for an additional $700 billion in tax cuts and curious why no mention was made in their so called pledge of Stopping Ear Marks or specific budget cuts, not one word in 21 pages?. Instead they made some vague promise to cut the budget to 2008 levels that MIGHT save $30 billion over 10 years(typo in previous post), whoppie, so how about the other $670 billion added to the deficit. Everyone wants tax cuts just tell us how they intend to pay for them.

@skipsailing: "If a model cannot predict something as important as the el nino cycle over a period of a few years why would anyone who isn't a inveterate kool aid drinker believe thier prediction"

It's been my observation in the field of climate science, climate models predict those outcomes that dovetail with their conclusions, but cannot be expected to predict those outcomes that are inconsistent with their conclusions. Thus, the models aren't actually worth much, in my opinion.

That being said, when fairly simple things are done--like data up to 1980 is used to try and predict the climate in 2010--the climate models have failed (as far as I know) completely, thus they don't seem to be ideal models.

But, disputing the science is one thing. Disputing policy prescriptions is something else again. One could acknowledge man made global warming as a scientifically demonstrable thing, and still be opposed to Cap and Trade or energy taxes or other prescriptions from the left that involve moving money from the private sector to the public (or creating new asset bubbles out of carbon credit to allow the super-rich to grow super-richer and leave middle-class tax payers holding the bag when it all collapses). Yet those folks would almost certainly be described as being anti-science, not because they deny man made climate change, but because they don't agree with the liberal policies advocated as dubious solutions to the predicted future problems of anthropogenic climate change.

michigan you are correct about the difference in the economic causes, my point was that Reagan was dealing with a 10.8% unemployment rate in Nov 1982 and the Iran Contra controversy and still went on to win around 40 states in a landslde againt Mondell in 1984, so all those measuring his drapes might want to reconsider. It still matters who his opponent will be in 2012.

OK, do the much vaunted climate prediction models that are being used to drive us into poverty capable of predicting el nino's as part of their process?

I am asking about this because;
(1) It would be great to be able to predict this
(2) It is a major climate shift and models that proclaim our doom in the 21st century or whenever must have the ability to take el nino into consideration and I don't believe that they do.

It is clear that the left has swallowed the enviro bait whole. but you know the problem with the bait, it hides the hook. And the hook is that once again the only answer from the "scientists" is that we cede control of our lives, and much of our property to them.

two things bother me about this: it is clear that Al gore and that Pachuri fellow are rank charlatans. No one who professes environmental concern would live as they do.

Next, the connection between liberalism and environmentalism is a match made in heaven. Liberals believe that a centralized, command economy is what is best for America. Environmentalists believe the same thing. In both cases the net result is the destruction of capitalism and its replacement with some vague notion of buccholic splendor. yeah, right.

Environmentalists are termed watermellons for a good reason: they are green on the outside and red on the inside.

Thank you Mr Willis for the excellent analysis. I just can't get past the charlatanesque behavior of so many prominent enviro guys. It kills the credibility of the movement to have as its face Gore and Pachuri. Both stand to make a mint of money while we are asked to surrender both money and freedom based on what amounts to their unproven dogma. No thanks.

Arizona Police should check there. It sounds like a place where immigrants might chose to hide under. Beheadings could be taking place under Jan Brewer's very, ahem, and she would never even notice it.

@Brigade...Agree with your comments about the economic debate that occurred on this blog over the weekend. I give tons of credit to 12BarBlues..who instead of falling for the blog game of I'm right you're wrong continued to force us all...left and right to get back on the issue. Kudos to 12BarBlues!!!

In a similar thoughtful fashion I would like to try and understand this from a "thoughtful" conservatives viewpoint the climate change debate.
Bill Maher...noted lefty..still gives voice to the Conservative viewpoint. Two of his 3 panelists were conservative this week..Andrew Breitbart and Amy Holmes.

The argument that took place over this entire climate change debate informed me quite a bit. Breitbart and Holmes started off scoffing at the Science...when Maher and his other guest started tossing off the figures...95% of the World's scientists believe in climate change..along with all the other evidence...Breitbart and Holmes moved their argument from DISAGREEING about climate change and switched to the more intellectual respoonse of yes there's climate change but what is causing it and what are the SOLUTIONS.

As a committed progressive here are a couple of arguments from the right I think we on the left can consider...that are not from the wackjobs like JokeDummy or Pmendez but perhaps thoughtful people like Kevin...maybe even Scott..

Climate change...there really isn't any argument whether it's occurring...vast bodies of scientific empirical research have already documented it. If you argue against this you're simply not informed or have Palin's respect for scientists as being elitest, educated, and therefore wrong...HOWEVER...we can debate the SOLUTION...I get the R's reaction about cap and trade...we can have that discussion but when you point out record snowstorms in the winter(actually more evidence of climate change..wild swings in our weather) when you conflate climate with weather ala Hannity, Limberger...you are an idiot not worth having a debate.

I feel the same way about the tax cut question and deficits. If you are so worried about the deficits that you are against extending ANY of the Bush tax cuts...I may disagree but I can at least respect your consistency of position...if you are simply worried about protecting the top 2%...that's disingenuous...there's far toooo much evidence to prove the tax rate proposed for the top 2% marginal rate will simply not have a deleterious effect on our economy. Stick up for the rich on principle...but not because it makes any economic sense..history is not on your side. If you fear the deficit...then I get your opposition to extension of any tax cuts.

leichtman1 ： “michigan you are correct about the difference in the economic causes, my point was that Reagan was dealing with a 10.8% unemployment rate in Nov 1982 and the Iran Contra controversy and still went on to win around 40 states in a landslde againt Mondell in 1984, so all those measuring his drapes might want to reconsider. It still matters who his opponent will be in 2012.”

I agree that those assuming an Obama loss are likely wrong. But I don't think your analogy works well. There isn't as easy an solution to our current economic problems as there was to Reagan's (Fed interest rate drop and Reagan's Keynesian deficit spending).

MY AMERICA? WHERE ARE YOU? RIGHT NOW IT IS ANYBODY'S GUESS!! AMERICA JUST HANG ON UNTIL THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS AND WE WILL BE SURE TO FIND OUT. NO MORE BILLIONAIRE POLITICIANS AND MILLIONAIRE POLITICIANS AND NO MORE OF ANY POLITICIANS GOING TO WASHINGTON JUST TO GET RICH OFF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND HAVING THE RIGHT TO PASS LAWS AND MAKE US LIKE IT.

WE HAVE ONE MAN IN CONGRESS, DOCTOR JOHN FLEMING, THAT IS DOING WHAT HE WAS SENT TO WASHINGTON TO DO! HE IS FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. NO MORE TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!! NO MORE SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR TERRORISTS, MUSLIMS SEEKING TO DESTROY OUR RIGHTS TO THANK GOD ANYWHERE AND ANYTIME WE SO CHOOSE. NO MORE OF ANYTHING THAT IS ANTI-AMERICAN AND------------------ANTI-GOD------------------
I WAS ON A MILITARY INSTALLATION THE OTHER DAY AND I NEVER SAW SO MANY PICTURES OF A PERSON THAT IS NOT EVEN OUR OFFICIAL PRESIDENT. BUT, OUR SUPREME COMMANDER,
===================GOD=====================
WAS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND!! DOES THIS MAN
CALLED obama REALLY THINK HE CAN MAKE US FORGET-------------OUR GOD??---------------
-------------COME ON NOVEMBER!!------------

IF I WERE PRESIDENT:
1. I WOULD PLACE OBAMA IN JAIL UNTIL HE
FURNISHED US WITH HIS ORIGINAL BIRTH
CERTIFICATE!!
2. I WOULD IMMEDIATELY MAKE IT A LAW
THAT ALL AUTOMOBILES GET A MINIMUM
OF 100 MPG WHICH IS POSSIBLE.
3. I WOULD RE IMPLEMENT SDI!!
4. I WOULD RE-ARM OUR MILITARY WITH THE
BEST AND NEWEST WEAPONRY.
5. I WOULD GIVE MEDICARE, MEDICAID AND
SOCIAL SECURITY PERMANENT STATUS.
6. I WOULD MAKE IMMEDIATE DEMAND UPON
CONGRESS TO MAKE IMMEDIATE SEARCH AND
FULLY RE-PAY SOCIAL SECURITY OF ALL
MONIES EVER WITHDRAWN.
7. I WOULD MAKE A LAW THAT SOCIAL
SECURITY COULD NEVER BE RAIDED AGAIN.
8. REMOVE ALL TAXATION POSSIBLE.
9. FROM THEN ON WALK SOFTLY FOR I WILL
HAVE A BIG STICK!

pmendez @ September 27, 2010 12:52 PM wrote a number of things. But you have failed to appreciate the essence of what we are seeing. It's a pity, because it is not a unique phenomenon. We are seeing a reaction to change. The 'sleeping giant' you are talking about is nothing more than a bunch of people who are upset that the world around them is changing. They are having a temper tantrum. Within five years their reaction will be as as irrelevant as that against integration and school busing, and all those other horrible things. Take a hint: we are discussing the same slice of the population. Their time has passed.

While they have their temper tantrum they will appear powerful. But society has changed, and that is not something that you can legislate or reverse. By its nature the reaction is not a creative force, usually it is a destructive force. Hopefully this time around it will be just a nuisance.

Ethan, if you want to ask a question, you'll have to stop using generalizations that seek to mischaracterize my position. Otherwise, what's the point of asking anyway? since you clearly make no effort to understand my POV, the questions you ask are just rhetorical throw aways.

and when it comes to hate, no body does it better than you.

and no AM, this is not a temper tantrum. That's yet another mischaracterization. Is it denial on your part? Or are you just not really interested in the POV of those who oppose your favored position?

and if change is really not something about which to be concerned? What is RU kidding concerned about?

is the climate changing? Why yes, constantly. so what?

And it is of no import that 90% of the "Scientists" believe much of anything. That's just opinion. I have no doubt that in 1798 or thereabouts 90% of the physicians in europe thought that human health was controlled by humors.

science should not be about concensus. In fact it should be about the opposite of that. The climate, like the economy, is very complex and different folks can draw different conclusions based on the same data sets.

Mr Crichton demolished some of the myths in his book 'state of fear' it was an interesting and informative read. The fact that it is foot noted and relies on readily available data shredded arguments about the validity of the man made crisis.

Now couple that with the nonsense we see from East Anglia and the charlatanesque behavior of the leader of the group that rights the IPCC and Americans are right to protest anything done in the name of "anthropogenic global warming".

michigan perhaps you are a lot younger than me but I remember the 1982 recession like it was yesterday and it was no better a time for the unemployed than it is today and that was 20 years before there was the internet and 24/7 Faux News to drive the story. It was a very deep recesion although perhaps not the same dynamics as today. In large parts of Houston there was street after street of foreclosed and for sale home. The major difference was that our banks were not as fragile, but we heard those same clarion calls that Reagan was a one termer for sure.

leichtman1 wrote,
"Where are the specifics about what they will cut to pay for an additional $700 billion in tax cuts and curious why no mention was made in their so called pledge of Stopping Ear Marks?. Instead they made some vague promise to cut the budget to 2008 levels MIGHT save over 10 year $30 years, whoppie, so how about the other $670 billion added to the deficit. Everyone wants tax cuts just tell us how you intend to pay for them."
----

First let me correct an earlier post. Nikki Haley is from South Carolina, not Georgia. And just when I was calling someone else ignorant. Good thing so few people read my posts. :)

Republicans SHOULD have put something in there about earmarks. As for paying for tax cuts, others have eloquently pointed out the problem with saying that tax cuts
must be paid for. We're not even talking about a cut at this point, we're talking about an extension of the current rates. Your guys should have taken a vote.

I agree brigade my guys should have taken a vote and I hope you will agree that your guys/gals should have joined that vote and stated they would agree to keep fighting for a vote for the haves and have mores if they get in power after first voting for a $3.2 trillion middle class tax cut. They would not under any conditions.

I think it is a bogus argument to say that tax cuts are FREE. That is precisely what Bush said in 2001. I am for the $3.2 trillion 97%ers tax cut and have no idea how that will be paid for by the Ds if passed. The Rs need to be consistent if they are going to say they will reduce the deficit and admit that it will either take an immediate and dramatic uptick in the economy or severe entitlement reform which as cowards the GOP refuses to embrace staying as far away as possible from Paul Ryan's Roadmap to privatize Medicare, increase premiums to seniors and increasing the retirement age for SS. Come on brigade you can't tell me that the pledge filled with nothing but political spin took on either Earmarks or deficit reduction in serious specific language. Rs fully knew that to have done so would have amounted to political suicide, so instead they offered up an empty 21 page document that even the Tea Party is calling a joke.

Ethan, it is a question of balance. What is the right balance between personal freedom and government regulation? What is the purpose of government regulation? What case can be made that proposed regulation has a good chance of achieving the stated goal? What process exists for monitoring existing regulation to insure that some value is added for the cost of compliance? What is the cost/benefit ratio for new regulation?

There is no reason for Americans to simply accept the edicts that emanate from the unelected, unaccountable and unfireable standing government. The EPA could issue regs that mandate actions which damage our economy. Shouldn't they have to prove that such regs are worth it?

This is one of the core beliefs of conservatives, that regulation of Americans by our government should be done only with our consent. With millions of employees and the legal weight of the law behind them, the bureaux that have been spawned by a series of well intentioned by misguided DC leaders have shackled the economy. We don't give our consent to much of this and we've tolerated too much.

Here's a perfect example. The stupid screw job new light bulb makes no sense to many of us. When did we agree that this was the ONLY kind of bulb we must use? Low flow flusher that require more than one flush? When did we vote on that?

when we talk about smaller government part of what we're concerned with is the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy. It is expensive and counter productive.

Without making judgments on your opinions -- which you do to progressives on a regular basis -- have you factored into your cost/benefit analysis the economic benefits of environmental laws and the negative impacts of pollution?

And if the EPA did an analysis which showed that environmental laws benefit the economy and that a lack of environmental laws had a negative impact on society, what would you think then?

"The stupid screw job new light bulb makes no sense to many of us. When did we agree that this was the ONLY kind of bulb we must use? "

Care to elaborate?

It costs a few bucks more than a regular incandescent but lasts 1,000 times longer so it is actually a huge money saver in the long run. A side benefit is that it uses less energy to make the same amount of light.

Is there something that you do not understand about that?

Also, who said that was the "ONLY" kind of lightbulb you must use? Is there some law that I'm missing? No. There is no law mandating that consumers must use a certain kind of lightbulb.

CFL bulb sales have grown substantially due to its increasing popularity among consumers (most likely because it saves consumers money and uses less energy).

That anybody can rejoice at having a large number of Senators and Congressmen in denial about the impact of greenhouse gases on global climate is beyond comprehension. The US stands alone in the developed world in that the number of skeptics on this subject has been increasing rather than decreasing while the evidence for climate change has become stronger year after year. It just shows how effective propaganda from corporations that can expect their profits to fall if any action is taken has been in this country. This issue should not be one of dispute between the two major parties. That the GOP has taken the position that one can ignore the growing alarm of scientists is truly worrisome. The rest of the world will not take meaningful action as long as the US does not. The scientific consensus is that if nothing is done in the next decade we will reach a tipping point with totally unpredictable nasty consequences. And the rest of the world will blame the US for it.

ktp70 talked about the Y2K bug with liberals screaming chicken little. The only reason that Y2K came and went without any serious event was because customers and computer vendors spent years and untold millions of dollars preparing for it. Anyone who thinks that Y2K wasn't a real issue is simply uninformed, but I guess it isn't much different from believing the earth is 6000-10000 years old, denying evolution or climate change.

Those who deny climate change will be held in contempt by their grandchildren.

They're absurd when they claim "it's not science". The National Academies of Science of all developed countries say it's science. NASA says it, NOAA says it, the Pentagon says it. Even the American Enterprise Institute now admits it's real. Even Exxon won't dare stand up and deny it publicly.

Instead they pay creeps like Fred Singer to spread pseudoscientific lies and smokescreens, and people who reached a conclusion long before they saw the evidence lap it up. Fred Singer, archdeacon of the deniers, previously worked for the tobacco industry, trying to cast doubt on the link between tobacco and lung cancer. That's the sort of garbage you deniers are swallowing.

How could you possibly recognise science anyway? Deniers are people who hate science. They deny evolution, too ... need I say more? The intellectual descendants of those who once burned people for saying the Earth went around the Sun. They trace their American lineage back to Salem, Massachussetts, where they used to hang little girls for being witches.

Worth pointing out: in 2006, Democrats picked up 6 seats in the Senate, and in 2008, they picked up 8. That's FOURTEEN Seats in two elections. Is anybody expecting ANYTHING like that from the Republican side?

What I find incredible is that in spite of the fact that Republicans are phenomenally unpopular and the electorate for this off-peak election is wildly un-representative, pundits are treating the potential of Republican gains as though they are much more meaningful in terms of insight into the true psyche of the American people than they did the MUCH, MUCH LARGER DEMOCRATIC gains of 2006 & 2008.

I find it flatly bizarre that the Republican policy of near-total obstruction in response to their party's unprecedednted repudiation by a wide, representative swath of voters was treated as legitimate by most pundits--but we are already hearing arguments from a supposedly "objective" pundit class that a much smaller pushback from a much less representative group of voters should be met with total deference by Democrats.

For God's sake, even if they win nine seats--FIVE fewer than the Democrats won from 2006-2008, they will not be in the majority! They'll be tied! Unless they win 8 seats--again, 6 FEWER than Dems won from 2006-08, they will remain in the minority.

I'm absolutely amazed that so many pundits are ignoring the polling, ignoring the total non-representativeness of the likely voter population, ignoring the facts that potential Republican gains of 2010 are far dwarfed by ACTUAL Democratic gains of 2006-08, and pretending that this is some great embrace of the right-wing Republican Party's insane, unpopular, and literally fiscally impossible domestic policy platform.

More people hate the healthcare bill because it didn't go far enough than because it went too far. Yet this incredibly basic fact about an issue that has dominated the news for almost a full year came as a total shock to the pundit class.

There is something terribly, terribly wrong with the punditry. They don't know what's going on. And they are choosing to invent false and wrong interpretations that support the Republican party. Why are they so biased?

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.